by Ralph Bulger
‘Go home, Ralph,’ said Jimmy. ‘You’ve done your duty and we will stay in court and let you know what is happening.’
I didn’t return to court after that for the duration of the trial, until near the end, when the verdict was due. Ray and Jimmy would report back to us at the close of each day, although I didn’t really want to hear what they had to say. It was like the ‘full up’ sign had come on and I was close to breaking point. I learned that some of the weapons used on James were shown to the jury, including bloodstained stones and bricks, and a rusty fishplate metal bar. James’s clothes were also shown to the court.
The Home Office pathologist, Dr Alan Williams, talked the jury through his examinations and spoke of how James had met his death.
He said, ‘In my opinion the cause of death was the result of multiple head injuries. There were forty-two injuries externally, including fifteen to the front of his face. There were extensive skull fractures. There are so many injuries to the scalp and skull, one cannot single out one particular blow to the head and say that was the one that was fatal. I would estimate there were at least thirty separate blows to the body. The majority were due to heavy blunt objects and, given the amount of brick dust at the scene, I consider bricks to be a likely implement. The imprint on James’s face appeared to have been caused by stamping or kicking from a shoe. I am certain that death was caused by the head injuries and not by transection by the train, but there is evidence to show he did not die immediately. There may have been a short period of survival, maybe only a few minutes, after the fractures.’
Expert witnesses were also called to explain much of the evidence and how it linked the two boys to James and his killing. Child psychiatrists, who had interviewed Thompson and Venables, testified that they were sure the boys knew that what they were doing was wrong. Consultant child psychiatrist Dr Eileen Vizard told the court how she had interviewed Robert a fortnight before the start of the trial. She insisted she was satisfied that he knew the difference between right and wrong and that he would have known so on the day of James’s murder. Her evidence included her findings that she believed Robert would also have known it was wrong to take a child from a mother, wrong to cause injuries to a child and wrong to leave an injured child on a railway line. She was cross-examined by Robert’s barrister, Mr David Turner, who asked her if she thought Robert was suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms and she replied, ‘Yes’.
Prosecutor Mr Henriques responded to this evidence when he re-examined Dr Vizard.
‘Did you find that there was any abnormality of mind at the time of the alleged killing?’ he asked.
She replied, ‘There was no evidence in my opinion on the balance of probability of post-traumatic stress disorder being present before the killing. What I have indicated in my report was that on the balance of probabilities this boy seemed to be suffering from two things: academic disorder and conduct disorder.’
Academic disorder, she explained, was when a child may have problems at school such as keeping up with lessons or playing truant. Conduct disorder, she added, was unusually disturbed behaviour resulting in lying, bullying or picking fights.
‘It is possible to have both these disorders and still distinguish between right and wrong as a child,’ she concluded.
It was the job of Consultant Adolescent Forensic Psychiatrist Dr Susan Bailey to assess Jon Venables. She confirmed that he too would have known it was wrong to take a child, injure him and leave him on a railway track. She added that he was of average intelligence. During her cross-examination she said that each time she asked Jon about James, he had cried inconsolably.
The police began to give their evidence and several days were spent listening to the taped interviews of the boys. It was, apparently, deeply disturbing to hear the squeaky, high-pitched voices of children talking about the murder they had committed. As the prosecution case drew to a close, it was time for the defence to make their case. But no witnesses were called and neither of the boys was called to give evidence on their own behalf.
Mr Henriques finished the week in court with his closing speech, insisting to the jury that Thompson and Venables had carried out a murderous act on a small child.
‘If ever a crime was committed jointly and together, then this was that crime,’ he continued.
Counsel on behalf of the boys began their closing speeches on Monday, 22 November, the fifteenth day of the trial. Mr Turner, representing Robert Thompson, took to his feet first to give his closing speech.
He said, ‘The sorrow and the pain of Denise Bulger and her husband dominate this trial. Those of us who have children must find the depth of their grief unimaginable. As I address you I can only hope to reflect the dignity that has been shown by the Bulger family in this harrowing trial.
‘When the news of young James Bulger and the manner of his death became known on St Valentine’s Day this year, the city of Liverpool missed a heartbeat and the nation was shrouded in grief. This case is not the tragedy of one family, but three families — a tragedy for the Bulger family, yes, but also for the families of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.
‘In this case there have been many tears shed, public tears and private tears, tears in the witness box, tears in the public gallery, tears in the dock — but those who have been dryeyed in this case may also be feeling pain and misery. No one who has been involved with this case will ever be the same again. None of us will ever see a child separated from his or her mother in a shopping centre without remembering James Bulger.
‘And what of you? Those of you with children will inevitably have identified yourselves and your children and your own experience with the facts that have occurred in this case. You will each take with you from this trial some terrible moment.’
He went on to argue that the murder was not planned, but was a case of mischief that went badly wrong. He added, ‘They did get on the railway. What happened there was terrible and terrifying. You know that Robert’s case is, and always has been, that the attack on little James was initiated and carried out by Jon Venables. It is no pleasant case for us to make that accusation against another eleven-year-old boy, but we say for whatever reason, petulant tiredness, a sudden mood swing, Jon Venables unhappily and tragically carried out a sudden but sustained attack on little James’ Mr Brian Walsh QC followed with his closing speech on behalf of Jon Venables. He said, ‘The prosecution say that Robert Thompson is a liar, a sophisticated liar who lied from beginning to end. I regret to say we agree. He lied to put the blame on Jon Venables and shuffle it off himself. He treated the police interview as a debate, a challenge, a sparring match. He was confident and assertive, the sort of person who would only admit something if you caught him in the act or produced a film of him doing it. Was there a word of remorse, an expression of sympathy or shame for what undoubtedly happened in his presence?’
He went on to stress to the jury that it was Jon Venables who had told the truth and deliberately missed James with bricks and only threw small stones, not wanting to hurt him. If he only wanted to hurt James, he concluded, then he was guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
The case was finished for both the prosecution and the defence, and all that remained was for the judge to carry out his summing-up of the trial before the jury retired to consider their verdict. Denise and I intended to be in court for their decision.
10
The Verdict
The judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Morland, spoke to the jury at length the following day. I wasn’t in court to hear him, but the court transcripts relay some of what he said.
‘All of those involved in this case will have been emotionally affected by the circumstances of James Bulger’s death, but I am sure each of you will assess the evidence and reach your conclusions dispassionately and objectively and will not allow your emotions to cloud your judgement.
‘You may think the evidence is overwhelming that James Bulger was abducted and that both defendants were involved physically in tak
ing James Bulger from the Strand precinct to the railway line. You may also think that by the conclusions of their separate interviews each defendant had admitted the abduction of James Bulger.
‘You may think the evidence is overwhelming that James Bulger was unlawfully killed and whichever of the defendants it was who inflicted those injuries intended either to kill James Bulger or to do him really serious injury.
‘The crucial question is not what was their intention when James Bulger was taken from the Strand or during the long walk of over two miles to the railway line, but what was the intention of each defendant on the railway line when the fatal injuries were inflicted. This was not a single throwing of a stone or brick but involved a number of blows to the skull of a two-, nearly three-year-old boy. You will consider why James Bulger was stripped of his shoes, trousers and underpants when he was attacked, and why the body was moved from one part of the track near the wall to the other line. Was that to suggest that the child had been subject to some form of assault by an adult, and then run over by a train? Was that to conceal or attempt to conceal the true cause of death?’
The judge continued a lengthy examination of the prosecution case for the jury, outlining the injuries and the witness accounts of what they had seen. His summing-up continued into the last day of the trial, when I returned to the court for the final time, this time with Denise. It was Wednesday, 24 November 1993.
It was an incredibly nerve-wracking day for us both, but more so for Denise because this would be the first time she would see her son’s killers. I know how it had affected me so I was really worried about her health, and the impact this might have on her, as she was only weeks from giving birth. I knew I would have to be there for her, to protect her. I didn’t want to see Venables and Thompson again myself, but we both knew we had to hear the verdict passed on the animals who had taken our baby boy.
We decided that it was best for her not to go into the courtroom for longer than absolutely necessary, and so the court provided a private waiting room for our family where she stayed while the trial wrapped up. I went back and forth throughout the day, giving Denise updates. I remember walking into the waiting room and seeing her sitting there looking so small and lost.
‘Don’t worry, Denise, the jury will see them for what they are.’ I tried in vain to convince her that the outcome of the trial would be good.
‘What if they find them not guilty? What if they let them go?’ her anguished voice replied.
‘They won’t, I’m sure of it,’ I responded. ‘But are you sure you want to see them?’
‘I have no choice,’ she whispered bravely. ‘I have to look at them and see for myself who was responsible for killing our son. I hate them but I have to be here for James’
I had the same fears running through my mind. What if the jury found them not guilty of murdering James? Would that mean these boys would be back on the streets looking for more victims? I prayed that they would come to the right decision. I felt exactly the same as Denise. This was the last place on earth I wanted to be, but we both had to be there in the hope that justice would be served for the slaughter of our innocent baby.
It was a horrible morning that seemed to last for ever. We had plenty of family in court that day to support us but the waiting was almost intolerable. When the judge had finished summing up, the jury retired with a long list of questions they had been asked to consider in order to determine the appropriate verdict. In the meantime, a legal argument was held regarding the identities of the two boys on trial. Until this point, they had only been referred to as Child A and Child B. Their identities were still not known to the wider public. The judge ruled that he would not make a decision on releasing the boys’ identities until the jury had delivered their verdict.
We were warned that the jury was likely to spend at least one night away from court deliberating the case as there was so much to consider. I spent most of the afternoon pacing up and down and trying to bring comfort to Denise. The tension was almost unbearable for us both.
It was towards the end of the day, and already dark outside, when our police liaison officers came into the waiting room to tell us that the jury was about to return to court and that they had reached their verdict. I couldn’t believe it.
‘Oh God,’ I thought. ‘This must mean they have found them not guilty.’
I looked at Denise and she stared back at me. Her face had dropped and she was visibly shaken. I felt myself shaking inside too, but I had to get a grip on myself.
‘Are you ready for this, Denise?’ I asked her softly. ‘Are you sure you want to go in there?’
‘Yes, let’s go,’ she said, her eyes blazing with determination.
I was so proud of Denise and marvelled at how strong she was being. I held her hand and squeezed it tight as we were ushered discreetly into the courtroom without having to go through the public waiting areas. We took our reserved seats in silence and I put my arm around Denise.
‘It will be OK,’ I whispered to her.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were by now in the dock waiting for the jury to return. They sat like stone, not showing any emotion at what was about to occur. The public and press began to pour back into the room and there was some chaos as people tried to scramble for their seats. It was mayhem for a few short minutes.
I sensed Denise staring at the boys and tightened my grip around her.
‘I can’t believe it,’ she said, as she shook her head in shock. ‘They are only children themselves.’
Once the chaos settled down and everyone was in their seats, the atmosphere seemed to freeze. It was so tense and quiet, you could have heard a pin drop. My heart was beating ten to the dozen and my mouth went as dry as the desert as we watched and waited for something to happen.
The court clerk asked the jury foreman if they had reached a verdict on the first charge of attempting to abduct Diane Power’s son.
‘No,’ he replied.
There was a huge gasp around the room and I hung my head, waiting for more terrible news.
Then the clerk asked if the jury had a reached a verdict on the second charge and the foreman responded:
‘Yes.’
The gasp went round again. The suspense was intolerable.
‘Do you find Robert Thompson guilty or not guilty of abducting James Bulger?’ the clerk continued.
‘Guilty,’ he replied.
‘Do you find Jon Venables guilty or not guilty of abducting James Bulger?’
‘Guilty,’ he repeated.
‘And that is the verdict of you all?’
‘Yes.’
I tightened my grip around Denise as we waited for more. Neither of us spoke a word, rooted to the spot.
The foreman said the jury had also reached a verdict on the third charge.
Once more, in a calm and unruffled manner, the clerk asked, ‘Do you find Robert Thompson guilty or not guilty of the murder of James Bulger?’
‘Guilty,’ he replied.
‘Do you find Jon Venables guilty or not guilty of the murder of James Bulger?’
‘Guilty,’ came his final response.
At that point, the whole room breathed out collectively and gasped as one at the verdicts.
All around me I could hear people whispering and chattering their delight. I thought I was going to combust on the spot. It was the right result; it meant that my son’s killers were now going to be punished for the terrible crimes they had committed against him, but I didn’t feel euphoric. I slowly leant in and kissed Denise on the cheek. Less than six hours after retiring to consider the case, the jury had returned unanimous verdicts that these two little devils had deliberately tortured and murdered James.
‘We got them,’ I whispered.
She didn’t move, almost overwhelmed by the events of the last few minutes. Albert Kirby came over and kissed Denise on her cheek and firmly shook my hand. I squeezed his hand tight. This man and his team had been responsible for ensuring James’s ki
llers were brought to justice and, for that, we would always be in his debt.
I looked to the dock and Robert Thompson sat unmoved, as he had done throughout. Jon Venables, meanwhile, was sobbing hysterically. They were tears of self-pity and concern for himself. They were not tears of remorse or sorrow for our defenceless baby. I felt not one ounce of compassion for either of them.
The jury was dismissed after they failed to reach a unanimous decision on the attempted abduction of Diane Powers son. This was a difficult verdict for them to arrive at because the boys had not actually taken the little boy away, and proving their intent was not easy. It was a lesser charge, but it was still the one that they got away with. I’m not sure why they didn’t find them guilty, because Venables had admitted to the police they had planned to snatch the child and shove him under a bus to make his death look accidental, but if any of the jurors had any doubts then they would have had to acquit them both. I was just so relieved that they had been found guilty of the worst charges against James.
There were still a few loose ends for the judge to tie up, including the issue of the boys’ identification. It was a tense moment, because at this point the general public still had no idea who James’s killers were. His ruling that followed was exactly what my whole family had hoped for. He took the decision to lift his original ban on naming the two boys. This would mean that the whole world would now learn the names of the boys who had killed James. All that was left was for the judge to pass sentence on the child defendants. His words have often been repeated, but on that day he spoke directly to the little schoolboys in the dock. I don’t think the gravity of what he had to say had any impact on either of them, but here is what he told them.
‘The killing of James Bulger was an act of unparalleled evil and barbarity. This child of two was taken from his mother on a journey of over two miles and then, on the railway line, was battered to death without mercy. Then his body was placed across a railway line so that it would be run over by a train, in an attempt to conceal the murder. In my judgement, your conduct was both cunning and very wicked.